Delhi Court September 1981 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Attar Singh JaIn Vs. Amir Singh Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT3
ORDER1. Amir Singh Jain, respondent herein, has four sons. Three of them reside in Delhi; the fourth one is at Bombay. He used to reside with one of his sons, Attar Sain Jain till October 1978. It appears from the record that he was carrying on partnership business with his grant son, son of Attar Sain Jain and his daughter-in law, wife of Attar Sain Jain, in the name and style of Mahabir Atta Bhandar. There were some differences between the partners. A suit was filed by Amir Singh Jain for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts. This suit was filed while Amir Singh Jain was residing with his said son. The said suit has been referred to an Arbitrator. 2. After filing of the suit Amir Singh Jain has started staying with his eldest son, namely, Anup Singh Jain who has a three-room Government flat in R. K. Puram. 3. On the allegation that Amir Singh Jain was unable to maintain himself he filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (herein called 'the Code') for mai...
Shiv Saran Krishan Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Del)25; [1982]137ITR409(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. The following question has been referred to us under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1962-63 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conditions precedent to the initiation of proceedings under section 147(a) in respect of the cash credit were fulfillled ?' 2. The facts of this case may now be set out to the extent necessary at this stage. The assessed is a firm with four partners which was originally assessed on a total income of Rs. 3,082 for the assessment year in question. On 28th March, 1966, proceedings for reassessment were initiated by a notice under s. 148 read with s. 147. The order sheet entry, which is important in this case, read as follows : 'As per information received from ITO, B(xvi)(1), New Delhi, regarding hundi loan from Afgan Fruit Company, a ghost firm, as per declaration filed by Gulab Singh Jain, advocate. thereforee, Notice u/s. 147 issued.' 3. We are concerned, by the substance of the question refer...
J. Dalmia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Del)305; [1982]138ITR653(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. There are three Income-tax Reference before the court, but they relate to six assessment years, namely, 1963-64 to 1968-69. As the facts are common and only one point arises, it will be convenient to mention the facts first which are quite simple. The assessed is Shri J. Dalmia, a director of M/s.Hari Brothers (P.) Ltd. The Company had provided him a portion of the house situated at 2, Hardinge Avenue, New Delhi, for the purpose of residence. The building is owned by M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., of which M/s. Hari Brothers (P.) Ltd. was the managing agent. The rent which was being paid for the whole building was Rs. 4,200 per annum. The assessed was to be assessed in respect of the (rental) value of the premises given to him for the purpose of his residence and he was agreeable to treat the entire amount of Rs. 4,200 as the value. The ITO valued the same at Rs. 12,500. This was confirmed by the AAC and also by the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the ...
The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kanta Bahen Dh of Latesh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Del)40; ILR1982Delhi769; [1983]140ITR187(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J. (1) These seven references at the instance of the Addl. 'Commssioner of Income-tax pertain to assessment years 1955-56 to 1959-60, 1961-62 and 1962-63. (2) Late Mr. L. D. Desai, the husband of the assessed, purchased a cinema on 6th July 1948 at a public auction. This cinema known as 'New Chitra Talkies' was located at Amritlal The price paid was Rs. 3,75,000. Immediately thereafter Mr. Desai leased out this' cinema to M/s. Better Theatres Ltd., Delhi on a monthly rental of Rs. 3.,000. The lease agreement was to be effective from 1-4-1949. (3) For the assessment year 1950-51, Mr. Desai had filed a return wherein he had disclosed, inter alia, his income from the cinema. The ifncome, thereforee, was computed at Rs. 5885 and indicated under the head 'property' income. Statutory deduction for repairs at Rs. 6116 as also depreciation on machinery and furniture were claimed. (4) The Income-tax Officer did not agree with this computation of income as he felt that a claim both f...
Mahender Singh JaIn Vs. Ganga Parshad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT30
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Controller Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') by the tenant is directed against the order dated 12th March, 1981 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 12th February, 1981 directing the appellant to pay or deposit arrears of rent from 1st September, 1979 at Rs. 100.00 per month within one month and to conti- nue to pay or deposit future monthly rent by the 15th of each succeeding month. (2) Briefly the facts are that the respondent-landlord on 21st February, 1978 filed an application for eviction of the appellant under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act. The tenant filed an application for leave to defend which was dismissed by the Controller and an order of eviction was passed on 28th November, 1978. He filed Civil Revision No. 216 of 1979. His dispossession was stayed on deposit of arrears of rent. He deposited Rs. 1150.00 in the office of ...
Atar SaIn JaIn Vs. Amir Singh Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ211; 1981(3)DRJ87
(1) Amir Singh Jain filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procetiure Code (the Code) for maintenance from his son Attar Sain Jain on the allegations that he is unable to maintain himself. Before the filing of this petition Amir Singh Jain was residing with Attar Singh Jain. (2) Amir Singh Jain filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, against his grandson, son of Attar Sain Jain and his daughter- in-law, wife of Attar Sain Jain. After the filing of the suit Amir Singh started living with his eldest son Anup Siagh Jain. The trial court dismissed the petition under Section 125 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that he was unable to maintain himself. Amir Singh Jain filed a revision which was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge held that Amir Singh Jain requires rupees four hundred per month for his maintenance. He has apportioned this amount amongst the four sons of Amir Singh and has direc...
Orient Paper Mills Limited Vs. Deputy Director of Inspection, Customs ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT99; 1982(10)ELT247(Del)
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. In these four appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent (L.P. As 127 to 130 of 1970) and the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (C.W. No. 776 of 1971) two common questions of law arises for determination. The two questions are : 1. Whether the special duty of excise imposed on certain goods by Section 80 of the Finance Act 10 of 1965 was a distinct duty imposed or was in the nature of a surcharge on excise duty livable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. Whether the amount of the duty of excise payable by a manufacturer mentioned in Section 280ZD for the purposes of tax credit certificate postulated by that section and Section 280ZE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 means excise duty actually paid or excise duty livable under the Excise Act. 2. It is not necessary to set out the facts of the cases at any great length. Suffice it to note that the financial years relevant in the five cases are 1965-66 to 1969-70. The case of the Orie...
Satya Vir Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi713; 1982LabIC663
Goswamy, J. (1) The main question which has been canvassed and falls for considerat'onin this petition is whether the orders of the Disciplinary Authority to the effect that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry could be said to be valid in law. (2) This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by 52 petitioners, challenging the order of dismissal passed against the petitioners Nos. I to 4 and contemplated action of dismissal against petitioners Nos. 5 to 51. Petitioner No. 52 is the employees association. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners Nos. I to 4 were till recently employees of the Research & Analysis Wing (hereinafter referred to as the RAW) of the Government of India. The petitioners Nos. 5 to 51 are still employees of Raw and are under suspension. The Raw is an Intelligence Wing of the Government of India and is concerned in intelligence gathering and analysis of overseas affairs. A sister Organisation viz., the Intell...
Bhoomitra Sharma Vs. Dev Raj Sood and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1981
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi440
J.D. Jain, J.(1) This is a suit for possession of the property in dispute and for recovery of Rs. 6,000 as damages for use and occupation thereof for the period 24th May, 1971 to 23rd November, 1971, at Rs. 1,000 per month. (2) The undisputed facts of the case are that Mrs. Sushila Sultan Singh was the owner of premises bearing No. 1283, Sultan Singh Building, Main Bazar, Kashmere Gate. The same comprised one shop consisting of five rooms .a courtyard, bath and lavatory on the ground floor and residential flats on the first floor and barsatis on the second floor Along with use of joint staircase bearing No. 1284. The said premises were let to M/s. Photo Service Co. which, according to the plaintiff, was a sole proprietary concern of late Lachhi Ram Sood as far back as 1928 at a monthly rent of Rs. 199.22P. The tenancy month commenced from 1st date of every English calendar month and ended on the last date of the same. Subsequently the plaintiff purchased the said property from the owne...
income-tax Officer Vs. Om Parkash and Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD992(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a registered firm, carries on the business of iron and steel. The previous year for the assessment year 1976-77 ended 31-12-1975 (not 31-3-1976 as mentioned in the assessment order). The assessee occupied a piece of land identified as 10170, Loha Mandi, Motia Khan, New Delhi, in the year 1948. This piece of land was occupied by the assessee till 25-7-1975. The Delhi Development Authority issued a notice No. D/QS/BB/134-E dated 31-12-1974 informing the assessee that it was an unauthorised occupation of the aforesaid piece of land and, therefore, under Sections 7(2) and (3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the assessee was required to pay damages of Rs. 25,821.60 at the rate of Rs. 130.50 per month, with effect from 5-4-1958 to 30-4-1974. The above notice, served on the assessee on 10-2-1975 and the date for receiving objections fixed on 10-2-1975, was extended to 24-5-1975. The assessee filed objections to show cause notice on 7-5-...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »